13. Building Care vs.

Macaraeg

TITLE BUILDING CARE CORPORATION/LEOPARD SECURITY &

INVESTIGATION AGENCY and/or RUPERTO PROTACIO,
petitioners, vs. MYRNA MACARAEG, respondent.

GR NUMBER 198357

DATE December 10, 2012

PONENTE PERALTA

NATURE/ PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

KEYWORDS resolution of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS Petitioners are in the business of providing security services to
their clients. They hired respondent as a security guard
beginning August 25, 1996, assigning her at Genato Building
in Caloocan City. However, on March 9, 2008, respondent was
relieved of her post. She was re-assigned to Bayview Park
Hotel from March 9-13, 2008, but after said period, she was
allegedly no longer given any assignment. Thus, on
September 9, 2008, respondent filed a complaint against
petitioners for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries,
non-payment of separation pay and refund of cash bond.
Conciliation and mediation proceedings failed, so the parties
were ordered to submit their respective position papers.
Respondent claimed that petitioners failed to give her an
assignment for more than nine months, amounting to
constructive dismissal, and this compelled her to file the
complaint for illegal dismissal.
On the other hand, petitioners alleged in their position paper
that respondent was relieved from her post as requested by
the client because of her habitual tardiness, persistent
borrowing of money from employees and tenants of the client,
and sleeping on the job.

Respondent then filed an administrative complaint for illegal

dismissal with the PNP-Security Agencies and Guard
Supervision Division on June 18, 2008, but she did not attend
the conference hearings for said case. Petitioners brought to
the conference hearings a new assignment order detailing
respondent at the Ateneo de Manila University but, due to her
absence, petitioners failed to personally serve respondent said
assignment order. Petitioners then sent respondent a letter
ordering her to report to headquarters for work assignment,
but respondent did not comply with said order. Instead,
respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
Labor Arbiter.

Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit. Respondent

filed a notice of appeal but it was dismissed for having filed
out of time. CA, on the other hand, reversed the NLRC
decision and declared respondent to have been illegally
 dismissed.

ISSUE(S) Whether or not the CA erred in liberally applying the rules of

procedure and ruling that respondent's appeal should be
allowed and resolved on the merits despite having been filed
out of time.
RULING(S) Yes. It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal
application, or suspension of the application of procedural
rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled
principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly
administration of justice. In Marohomsalic v. Cole,the Court
stated:

While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of

justice, it is well-settled that these are tools designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases. The relaxation of
procedural rules in the interest of justice was never intended
to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with
impunity. Liberality in the interpretation and application of the
rules can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable
causes and circumstances. While litigation is not a game of
technicalities, every case must be prosecuted in accordance
with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice.

Clearly, allowing an appeal, even if belatedly filed, should

never be taken lightly.1âwphi1 The judgment attains finality
by the lapse of the period for taking an appeal without such
appeal or motion for reconsideration being filed. In Ocampo v.
Court of Appeals (Former Second Division),the Court
reiterated the basic rule that "when a party to an original
action fails to question an adverse judgment or decision by not
filing the proper remedy within the period prescribed by law,
he loses the right to do so, and the judgment or decision, as
to him, becomes final and binding."The Decision of the Labor
Arbiter, therefore, became final and executory as to
respondent when she failed to file a timely appeal therefrom.
The importance of the concept of finality of judgment cannot
be gainsaid. As elucidated in Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,